[Merged]Peer-reviewed technical paper to appear in mainstream journal

[Jonnyclueless]

Sizzler, I forgot to mention there's a $600 fee to post on this forum.

[LashL]

Here's an interesting commentary about Bentham...

Quote:

Chris Reed, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry (University of California, Riverside), offers the following modest proposal on CHMINF-L:

Colleagues:
In last week's interesting CHMINF-L discussion on Nature's proliferation of new journals, faculty habits, and the serials market, I saw no mention of an ongoing parallel onslaught by Bentham. In the past month, I have received no less that three invitations to join the editorial boards of new Bentham journals -- "Current this", "Frontiers of that" -- none in areas of my real expertise.

The same old tactics are being used: exploiting a faculty weakness for seeing one's name in print, offering a career advance by having Editorial Board appointments on one's CV at promotion time, flattering authors with invitations to contribute papers in special issues, etc. All this effectively silences faculty from speaking out, or even caring about, the issues librarians understand so well. It is one of the reasons I am advocating that promotion policies at the University of California specify that appointments to the editorial boards of low quality, overpriced journals should count against promotion. The idea may not be so outrageous in five or ten years time.

...

PS. In case you are wondering, yes, I did hit the delete key on those Bentham invitations.

Here is another:

http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicens.../msg00027.html

[volatile]

That is just GOLDEN. Good find, Lash.

[Tweeter]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Sizzler, $600 is the difference between me eating and not eating. Maybe for YOU it is nothing, but not for many of us here. Should you care to give me the $600, as it means nothing to you, I will be happy to refute Jones' incompetent rambling letter.

Maybe if you had the same enthusiasm making money as you do debunking the wooo you would be able to eat. Your statement is very telling of the cult that is debunkers.

[tanabear]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

You did indeed say that, and you said it right here.

Those experiments have been conducted, and they are Bazant & Zhou (2002), Bazant & Verdure (2003), Bazant, Le, Benson, and Greening (in press), and Seffen (2008). And the answer is Yes.

This is what I wrote in the post you linked to,

"First, someone needs to demolish a building(i.e. a steel-frame high-rise) with fire and impact damage the way WTC 1,2 and 7 were destroyed. The collapse must mirror the dynamics of the actual collapse of those buildings. That would falsify my belief that those buildings must have been destroyed by explosive charges. Where can I see experimental verification? Words on paper don't count."

So where did I say that I require a plane to impact the building? I merely stated, "fire and impact damage." As I stated in a previous post, one can use other means to simulate the impact damage from the plane.

Bazant, Greening, and Benson have written papers. I'm referring to an actual experiment that can verify their hypothesis. Einstein had his theory of general relativity, but it still needed to be proven via the experimental method. So in steps Sir Arthur Eddington to prove that Einstein is correct. He conducts an experiment to see how much light is bent by the sun during a solar eclipse in 1919. If the experimental method is good enough for Einstein, then it is good enough for Bazant, Greening and Benson.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by tanabear

This is what I wrote in the post you linked to,

"First, someone needs to demolish a building(i.e. a steel-frame high-rise) with fire and impact damage the way WTC 1,2 and 7 were destroyed. The collapse must mirror the dynamics of the actual collapse of those buildings. That would falsify my belief that those buildings must have been destroyed by explosive charges. Where can I see experimental verification? Words on paper don't count."

So where did I say that I require a plane to impact the building? I merely stated, "fire and impact damage." As I stated in a previous post, one can use other means to simulate the impact damage from the plane.

Ah, I see. You're merely nitpicking that your previous post didn't actually specify an aircraft collision, even though it did specify a skyscraper. Nonetheless, you said you demanded to see it in full-scale. That's the whole point. You require someone to destroy a skyscraper for you.

If you understood the physics, you'd accept that this is unnecessary.

Originally Posted by tanabear

Bazant, Greening, and Benson have written papers. I'm referring to an actual experiment that can verify their hypothesis. Einstein had his theory of general relativity, but it still needed to be proven via the experimental method. So in steps Sir Arthur Eddington to prove that Einstein is correct. He conducts an experiment to see how much light is bent by the sun during a solar eclipse in 1919. If the experimental method is good enough for Einstein, then it is good enough for Bazant, Greening and Benson.

Mathematics is a way of experimentation.

The mathematics happens to match observed phenomena in both WTC 1 and WTC 2. This is not, therefore, prediction of a previously unobserved natural behavior. For that reason, the actual collapses are sufficient. There is no parallel between this result and the predictions of general relativity.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by quicknthedead

http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/index.htm
The Open Civil Engineering Journal
Aims & Scope

The Open Civil Engineering Journal is an Open Access online journal, which publishes research articles, reviews, and letters in all areas of civil engineering.

The Open Civil Engineering Journal, a peer-reviewed journal, aims to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on recent developments in civil engineering. The emphasis will be on publishing quality articles rapidly and freely available to researchers worldwide.

Yes, but,...

as a review article, it's terrible. Bad to the point of being deceptively misleading, since it leaves out whole areas of the literature it is attempting to "review."

It is, to quote the journal, neither "complete" nor "reliable"; it is about as far from a "quality" article as it's possible to get without the actual manuscript being received in crayon.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

I know exactly how much a NASA engineer makes and I can spare $600, but your proposal is ludicrous.

I quite agree. For the record, while I would be loathe to characterize $600 as "chump change," I could certainly afford the fee. What I'm not sure I could afford is the terrible, terrible hit my professional credibility would take if I were to take that "letter" seriously enough to respond to it. The effect would be that I would actually lend more credibility to Jones and his incompetent theories than I would garner myself.

Quote:

The basic error with this "letter" of Dr. Jones's is that (a) it is terribly written, and (b) it is a procedural mistake. It isn't a ground-breaking result that demands scientific challenge. It's an embarrassment that should be quietly disposed of. Publishing a rebuttal would only accentuate the problem.

Nailed it in one, you did.

Quote:

I'm trying to help a fledgling publisher avoid a minefield that they seem to have accidentally stepped in.

I'm still on the fence about "accidental" -- I don't know whether Bentham is a vanity journal or not. God knows there's enough minor journals that I don't know about that are just strugglingly legitimate.

My hope is that this style of peer review doesn't point the way for Bentham down the path to the Dark Side.

[volatile]

Originally Posted by drkitten

I'm still on the fence about "accidental" -- I don't know whether Bentham is a vanity journal or not. God knows there's enough minor journals that I don't know about that are just strugglingly legitimate.

My hope is that this style of peer review doesn't point the way for Bentham down the path to the Dark Side.

LasL's last post, especially the link he didn't directly quote, might clear that up for you.

They're unprofessional charlatans from their very core - to wit, they invite people with no experience whatsoever in the relevant fields to be on the editorial board of their journals.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by LashL

Here's an interesting commentary about Bentham...




Here is another:

http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicens.../msg00027.html

Very interesting...the light is beginning to fall upon the shadows...

From the above link...

Quote:

Not only does Bentham spam for authors. They are also spamming for editors.

Quote:

I was particularly pleased with the following:

Based on your record of contributions in the field of Education, I would like to invite you to submit to me your CV with current list of publications so that we may consider you as a possible *Editorial Board Member* for the journal.

Since I my record in the field of Education is nil, I feel particularly well-qualified. I have never written a thing in an Education journal.

priceless.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Look here....

http://gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.co...-journals.html

Quote:

My first spam award goes to Bentham Publishers, a "publisher" of "over 200" author-pays open access journals. In the past couple of months I have received no less than 11 emails from Bentham, all mostly identical in text and form, all signed by "Matthew Honan, Editorial Director, Bentham Science Publishers" or "Richard Scott, Editorial Director, Bentham Science Publishers", "inviting" me to submit research articles, reviews and letters to various journals (I got one email per journal!), including "The Open Operational Research Journal", "Open Business Journal", "Open Management Journal", "Open Bioinformatics Journal", "Open Ethics Journal", "Open Analytical Chemistry Journal" and so on - all of them sent to me "because of your eminence in the field" (wow, I didn't know I was so eminent in so many fields! As an aside, the claim that "this is no spam because you are eminent" defies any commonly accepted definition of spam - a message is spam if it is bulk and unsolicited, whether the recipients are all Nobel prize winners or not is irrelevant).

All pleas and begging from my side to stop the spamming, as well as clicking on any "unsubcribe" links did not stop the spam plague from Bentham.

The bulk email "invites" me to submit articles and to pay for publication - "modest open access publication costs are usually covered by the author's institution or research funds.".

or here

http://www.freelists.org/archives/ne.../msg00000.html
http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog/ar...open-journals/

[boloboffin]

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by volatile

LasL's last post, especially the link he didn't directly quote, might clear that up for you.

It's certainly suggestive.

Quote:

They're unprofessional charlatans from their very core - to wit, they invite people with no experience whatsoever in the relevant fields to be on the editorial board of their journals.

May I nitpick? (How would you stop me?)

They invite people with no experience whatsoever to apply for consideration to be possible members of the editorial board.

This might simply be an attempt to get the widest possible coverage for their journals, esp. from people who would not otherwise be "in the know" and on the standard distribution lists.

Or it might be blatant spam for a vanity journal. I'm still not yet ready to make the ignorance vs. evil declaration.

[LashL]

Originally Posted by volatile

LasL's last post, especially the link she didn't directly quote, might clear that up for you.

It may also shed some light on the "suspiciously large" editorial board that R. Mackey mentioned earlier in this thread.

[Mr.Herbert]

I was originally thinking that bad mouthing this so called "Journal" would be in bad taste and make us realists look like we are desperate and/or nervous about a truther paper getting accepted. I tell you, I changed my mind quick after reading the endless sites showing what type of a racket this company is.

Dr. Jones knows the idiots of the world (his followers) will not do any research on the contents of what he wrote, nor will they be interested in validity of their peer review process.

[volatile]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Or it might be blatant spam for a vanity journal. I'm still not yet ready to make the ignorance vs. evil declaration.

Well, maybe. But when they're sending invitations to the same people to be on journals covering topics as disparate as "Education" and "Sleep", the needle's swinging quite heavily towards spam.

[T.A.M.]

To be fair, Open Access journals are a good idea in theory. The troubles can come from Open access depreciating the value of the content. As well, this OA group appears to be of a "spamming" nature wrt obtaining professors to add to its lists for contributors and editors. Sort of stacking the resume of the journal.

TAM

Edit:

This guy,

http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk/

apparently a journalist who has focused on OA journals, is the guy who sent out the warning about Bentham's solicitation practices.

here is the letter he sent out...

Quote:

ear All,

I would be grateful if anyone could help me. I am interested in an Open
Access publisher called Bentham Science Publishers
(http://www.bentham.org/). I have been contacted by a number of researchers
who say that the company is bombarding them with invitations to contribute
papers to its journals. Apparently requests by the recipients to remove them
from Bentham's mailing list have little or no effect.

I have tried to make contact with a number of people in the company
including Richard Scott, who is most often the person whose name appears at
the bottom of the invitation letters, and was until recently listed as the
editorial director of the company on its web site
(http://www.bentham.org/Contact.php). I also copied into my emails Bentham's
US contact Richard Morrissey, and Matthew Honan, who earlier this year was
also described as the company's editorial director
(http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2...g-program.html). Likewise I copied in Professor Thomas Salt, since he too has signed
some of the offending emails in his capacity as Editor-in-Chief of a Bentham
journal called Current Neuropharmacology. Tom Salt appears to be based in
the Department of Visual Science at the Institute of Ophthalmology in
London.

Despite all my attempts to make email contact with the company and its
representatives, however, the only response I have received has come from
someone called Mahmood Alam who seems to be based in Pakistan. He informed
me that Richard Scott was too busy to speak with me, but invited me to email
my questions to him. After I sent some questions through to Mahmood Alam,
however, he failed to answer them.

I have also tried calling the telephone numbers listed on the Bentham web
site, but have only been able to get through to voice mail messages. The
number listed for Richard Morrissey simply invites callers to email him (the
address given is the one that I have failed to get any response from).

I would be most grateful if anyone who has any knowledge of Bentham, or any
experience of publishing with the company, or editing any of its journals,
or anyone who regularly reads any of the Bentham journals, could contact me
on: richardpoynder1 -- o2.co.uk.

Thank you.

Richard Poynder
www.richardpoynder.co.uk

https://arl.org/lists/sparc-oaforum/Message/4293-P.txt

I wonder if he would be interested as to the type of content one of the Bentham OA journals is publishing?

TAM

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Edit:

This guy,

http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk/

apparently a journalist who has focused on OA journals, is the guy who sent out the warning about Bentham's solicitation practices.

I wonder if he would be interested as to the type of content one of the Bentham OA journals is publishing?

TAM

I'm sure he'd be fascinated. You should contact him and refer him to this thread.

[T.A.M.]

maybe I should...

TAM

[T.A.M.]

A little off topic, but this concept of OA has me wondering.

I mean in principle, it is a good idea, free journals for the readers.

However, if the only source of revenue for the OA company is the fee paid by the author for the published articles, is that not a conflict of interest in terms of having the articles properly reviewed.

I mean, is there not an incentive for them to have very loose standards, so as to maximize their revenue???

Thoughts??

TAM

[Tweeter]

Welcome to the real world T.A.M !!
People do lie and do bads things to maximize profit.
Now take that lesson and go with it.

[Doctor Evil]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

A little off topic, but this concept of OA has me wondering.

I mean in principle, it is a good idea, free journals for the readers.

However, if the only source of revenue for the OA company is the fee paid by the author for the published articles, is that not a conflict of interest in terms of having the articles properly reviewed.

I mean, is there not an incentive for them to have very loose standards, so as to maximize their revenue???

Thoughts??

TAM

In my opinion, there are competing motives here, namely profit and prestige. I can imagine a good open source journal, which can charge more for each publication, but publishes less. If this journal accepts too many bad papers, its stature will decline, and competent researches will tend not to publish there. These competing forces make it hard to predict what will happen with any certainty.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

However, if the only source of revenue for the OA company is the fee paid by the author for the published articles, is that not a conflict of interest in terms of having the articles properly reviewed.

I mean, is there not an incentive for them to have very loose standards, so as to maximize their revenue???

That's one reason that it's very rare for OA journals to charge authors' fees. As I said, outside of the biology journals -- which have been used to page charges for years, so there's nothing novel or shocking there -- very few OA journals make these charges.

Instead, it's (mostly) the Google model. If you want to access the paper, look at the ads. In many regards, a scientific journal is an advertiser's dream; it's readership will have very specific focused interests and typically have grant money to burn.

Of course, there's a potential conflict of interest THERE, too, as a journal that gets most of its money from Microsoft ads might not want to accept an article entitled "Yet another fundamentally unfixable flaw in Vista security." Since I don't think any business model is entirely free from conflicts of interest, I have to file that under the heading of "pobody's nerfect."

A lot of journals also have other revenue streams, such as subsidies from the professional organization with which they are affiliated, or direct subsidies from foundations and national agencies. I even know some that are run from traditional (book) publishing houses, as a loss leader to bring in new "book" authors. One of my publishers, for example, will sell bound copies of its E-papers for a "moderate" fee -- but still enough to pay for a lot of bandwidth. And, of course, e-publishing is so much cheaper than traditional paper publishing that the companies can make a little revenue go a very long way.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Tweeter

Maybe if you had the same enthusiasm making money as you do debunking the wooo you would be able to eat. Your statement is very telling of the cult that is debunkers.

Go to hell. I'm trying to ensure a Democratic victory this election, and I'll STARVE to get that.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

I mean, is there not an incentive for them to have very loose standards, so as to maximize their revenue???

Thoughts??

It certainly seems like a model that would require stronger principles on the part of the publisher to uphold properly.

Also, given the stories about Bentham's potential spamming, I have to wonder how S.Jones heard about this publisher...

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

To be fair, Open Access journals are a good idea in theory. The troubles can come from Open access depreciating the value of the content. As well, this OA group appears to be of a "spamming" nature wrt obtaining professors to add to its lists for contributors and editors. Sort of stacking the resume of the journal.

I agree. This is why I'm still holding out some optimism. It is possible that the Bentham folks really do want to be a quality journal. If so, they will demonstrate it by responding to professional criticism and applying a high standard of quality.

For the record, Mahmood Alam is the gentleman who responded to my e-mail. It would be unfortunate if he was the real brains behind the operation and all the other professors were simply window-dressing, but so far I have no evidence that this is taking place. I give Mr. Alam credit for acknowledging my letter quickly, that's a good start.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

It certainly seems like a model that would require stronger principles on the part of the publisher to uphold properly.

Also, given the stories about Bentham's potential spamming, I have to wonder how S.Jones heard about this publisher...

I think with the proper editor and writers, this could make a good 60 minutes type story.

Vanity press lowers standards; tick, tick, tick

Bad to turn down a paper, the company looses money. They can shotgun the paper to 20 reviewers, the 3 or 4 that pass it, become the peer review group; cash check, publish paper. FAST TRACK your paper with .6k.

Who is disparate enough to pay 600 bucks? Jones! Funny if the movement dries up before he gets some paid speaking events to pay for their Holiday Inn Express and earn back the 600 bucks.

[T.A.M.]

There are a tonne of scientists that would pay $600 to have their articles published. It is how scientists climb the ranks, gain prestige, etc...

With prestige and fame come more grants, more research, more publishing, and so on, and so on...

TAM

[16.5]

Originally Posted by volatile

LasL's last post, especially the link he didn't directly quote, might clear that up for you.

They're unprofessional charlatans from their very core - to wit, they invite people with no experience whatsoever in the relevant fields to be on the editorial board of their journals.

Beyond the fact that the article was a joke, the Journal is Spam. for profit. on line... garbage, just like your article.

And another complete debunking. In what, Jones? 24 hours?

Now we absolutely dismantled your "Woournal's" "put option" garbage article in about 6 hours.... but this was over the weekend.... so I'll call it a tie.

Congrats on getting published though..... tee hee hee!!

[T.A.M.]

I kind of figured the journal would have this tid bit...

Quote:

Manuscripts must be submitted by one of the authors of the manuscript, and should not be submitted by anyone on their behalf. The principal/corresponding author will be required to submit a Covering Letter along with the manuscript, on behalf of all the co-authors (if any). The author(s) will confirm that the manuscript (or any part of it) has not been published previously or is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Furthermore, any illustration, structure or table that has been published elsewhere must be reported, and copyright permission for reproduction must be obtained.

http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/MSandI.htm

So I will assume then that the article they submitted to this journal is (A) not published in any other journal (including JONES) and not under consideration elsewhere.

TAM

[Mr.D]

Did someone say conflict of interest?

Quote:

Once the paper is accepted for publication, the author will receive by email an electronic invoice. The fee form is also available on the Web site at www.bentham.org/open/feeform Submissions from the Editorial Board Members of the journals will receive a special discount of 50% on the total publication fee. Submissions by authors from developing countries will receive a discount of 30% on the total publication fee charge.

Emphasis mine.

Sadly, there are legitimate arguments to be made for journals to push publication costs back in the direction of the funding agencies (via the researchers) and away from the subscribers. Too bad this is starting to look like more of a moneymaking scheme than anything.

[CHF]

Wow....I think I'm beginning to understand why Jones picked this journal to submit his JAQ-off piece.

Seems like they're pretty much accepting anything.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by Mr.D

Did someone say conflict of interest?

Ooh, that's pretty poor.

[A W Smith]

whois

Quote:

Domain ID:D24662417-LROR
Domain Name:BENTHAM.ORG
Created On:11-Apr-2000 10:11:39 UTC
Last Updated On:17-Nov-2007 08:31:20 UTC
Expiration Date:11-Apr-2010 10:11:39 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Abacus America Inc dba Names4Ever (R14-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:PRPKY
Registrant Name:Dr. Mark Dekker/Dr. Mansoor Alam www.bentham.org
Registrant Organization:Bentham Science Publishers Ltd www.bentham.org
Registrant Street1:P.O Box. 1673, 1200 BR
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Hilversum
Registrant State/Province:--
Registrant Postal Code:00000
Registrant Country:NL
Registrant Phone:+1.31356257290
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:mansoor7@cyber.net.pk
Admin ID:PJ5TQ
Admin Name:Dr. Mark Dekker/Dr. Mansoor Alam www.bentham.org
Admin Organization:Bentham Science Publishers Ltd www.bentham.org
Admin Street1:P.O Box. 1673, 1200 BR
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Hilversum
Admin State/Province:--
Admin Postal Code:00000
Admin Country:NL
Admin Phone:+1.31356257290
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:mansoor7@cyber.net.pk
Tech ID:PEVSK
Tech Name:Dr. Mansoor Alam
Tech Organization:Bentham Science Publishers Ltd
Tech Street1:PO Box 927010
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Hilversum
Tech State/Province:--
Tech Postal Code:786786
Tech Country:NL
Tech Phone:+1.920214965253
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:mansoor7@cyber.net.pk
Name Server:NS1.SECURE.NET
Name Server:NS2.SECURE.NET

[volatile]

Why did Jones, who can obviously write publishable research (he does have a PhD, after all), who understands publishing and who watered down his claims so much as to make them extraordinarily subtle (for the most part), not send this to a real journal? I mean, if he honestly thought it was legitimate, worthwhile and publishable, he'd have submitted it somewhere sensible off the bat. It's as if he knows exactly what level of crap he's pushing or something, but is too embarrassed to admit it to himself.

He must have realised what an illegitimate vanity journal this was (or, if we're being charitable, would be perceived as), so why pick it? With a little care and a little savvy, he could have gotten something along the same lines published somewhere sensible. Mackey's pointed out several legitimate areas suggesting routes of further inquiry into NIST, and a real paper exploring those in any depth would be publishable.

So what's he up to? If he's deliberately trying to get "in the literature" for credibility purposes, he's gone about it the wrong way. If he really, genuinely believes in the conspiracy theories and he's legitimately interested in researching the issues he purports to be interested in, he's going about it the wrong way. Hell, even if he knows everything he writes is a crock and he's pushing some ideological, egotistical or financial scam, he's going about it the wrong way. He just seems so... inept. This is clumsy, stupid, fool-hardy, immature, naive and silly. What the hell is he playing at?

[R.Mackey]

I've wondered that myself for years.

The fact is, there are lots of papers that dispute NIST. Published. In real journals, big famous ones even. Cited, influential, filled with useful information and new perspectives.

The major difference between these other researchers and Dr. Jones, as far as I can tell, is that these folks know that a problem with NIST !=> explosives brought down the Towers. That is about the absolute last thing one would propose as an explanation. See Dr. Irfanoglu, Dr. Astaneh-Asl, Dr. Lane, Dr. Usmani, or Dr. Quintiere for details, just to name a few.

[MikeyMetz]

Originally Posted by volatile

This is clumsy, stupid, fool-hardy, immature, naive and silly. What the hell is he playing at?

Perhaps Stephen Jones is secretly conducting an experiment where he's testing how far he can completely sucker people into absolutely nothing. If there's anything that proves the truthers are complete suckers, it's the 100% support this is getting over at 911Blogger.

The only rational explanation, in my mind, is that Jones knows that the entire 9/11 Truth Movement is a fraud and is milking it for all it's worth. If the truthers are naive enough to think that donating to Ron Paul's retirement fund or Alten's book sales is "activism," then why not con them into believing that he's a world-renowned physicist? I'm sure his speaking fees will increase now that he's "Peer-reviewed & Published" Steven Jones.

Agree with it or not, so far it's working on the absent-minded truthers.

[R.Mackey]

There's another incongruity with Dr. Jones's approach.

Suppose you're a researcher. You want to publish a result, but you don't think it's quite good enough for the ASCE or J.Apl.Phys yet. What do you do? Do you submit it to a third-rate journal from Pakistan?

No, not usually. Usually what you do is write and present a conference paper.

Conference papers are generally reviewed with much less scrutiny and insistence on iron-clad results. They allow more speculation and work-in-progress. As it should be. The Conference is an opportunity to discuss your method with other scientists and get useful suggestions. These papers are also a well-established stepping stone to a polished journal paper, which then becomes (after review and acceptance) authoritative in the field.

Why are these people not appearing at conferences? I do about six a year, was at one just last week. That is what a normal researcher would do. That's what I and all of my colleagues do.

Of course, if they pull this unverified thermite nonsense, they'll be laughed out of town, but I trust Dr. Jones and company have enough decorum, integrity, and sense to present only that which they can support.

[PhantomWolf]

Okay, for those of us whose Journal knowledge extends to being able to find the articel we want, what is the difference between a Review Paper and a Letter?

[lapman]

Did anyone also notice what they charge to advertise?

Quote:

Ads are placed on the Bentham OPEN home page. Up to three ad banners can be placed in rotation at any time.

CENTRAL BANNER
468 x 60
Most prominent position on site.
Repeated on all subsequent page views.
$5000 per 3 months
minimum 3 months

LEFT HAND BANNER
150 x 294
Repeated on all subsequent page views $2000 per 3 months
minimum 3 months

LEFT HAND BANNER
150 x 294
For specific OA journal home page $800 per 3 months
minimum 3 months

RIGHT HAND BANNER
150 x 294
For specific OA journal home page $800 per 3 months
minimum 3 months